Criminal Justice
Policy Review
http://cjp.sagepub.com/

100,000 Sex Offenders Missing . . . or Are They? Deconstruction of an
Urban Legend
Jill S. Levenson and Andrew J. Harris
Criminal Justice Policy Review published online 14 July 2011
DOI: 10.1177/0887403411415398
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/07/14/0887403411415398

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Department of Criminlogy at Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Additional services and information for Criminal Justice Policy Review can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cjp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

415398
nson and HarrisCriminal Justice Policy Review

CJPXXX10.1177/0887403411415398Leve

100,000 Sex Offenders
Missing . . . or Are They?
Deconstruction of an
Urban Legend

Criminal Justice Policy Review
XX(X) 1­–12
© 2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0887403411415398
http://cjp.sagepub.com

Jill S. Levenson1 and Andrew J. Harris2

Abstract
It is frequently reported by the media and public officials that 100,000 registered sex
offenders (RSOs) in the United States are “missing.” This policy note first describes
the origin of this figure, which was initially derived from a 2003 informal survey of
state registries conducted by a grassroots advocacy organization. Then, we explore
the definitional ambiguities that complicate the process of calculating the national
number of fugitive sex offenders. Finally, we present emerging research efforts to
develop reliable estimates of the number and proportion of RSOs officially recorded
by states as absconded, whereabouts unknown, or noncompliant with registration
requirements. While such data remain limited, we find little evidence to support
that 100,000 sex offenders are “missing,” using even the most inclusive definitions.
Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
Keywords
registered sex offender, missing, failure to register, noncompliance, registration
Like traditional folklore, urban legends tell one kind of truth. They are a unique, self
conscious reflection of major concerns of individuals in the societies in which they circulate. . . . the lack of verification in no way diminishes the appeal urban legends have
for us.
Brunvand, 1981
1

Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA, USA

2

Corresponding Author:
Jill S. Levenson, Lynn University, Department of Psychology and Human Services, 3601 N. Military Trail,
Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA
Email: jlevenson@lynn.edu

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

2		

Criminal Justice Policy Review XX(X)

The Story of a Number
The number is 100,000. Depending on the account, it has been used to represent the
number of sex offenders in the United States who are “missing,” “noncompliant,”
“fugitive,” “evading authorities,” or “absconded.” Since early 2003, this attentiongrabbing statistic has occupied a prominent place in the discourse over our nation’s
sex offender policy. This figure (or in recent cases, an upwardly adjusted variant of it)
has appeared in dozens of news articles, testimony from advocates and public officials, Congressional and government agency reports, press releases, and federal
appropriations bills. The number is commonly cited without attribution as an unassailable fact—a self-evident fixture in the dialogue over how best to protect society from
dangerous sexual predators.
The routine use of the “100,000 missing” figure by the media and public officials,
and the context in which it is typically invoked, suggest a number of implicit assumptions: (a) that the figure is accurate and derived from a valid data source, (b) that it is
based on a reasonably uniform and commonly accepted definition, (c) that registration
noncompliance is an indication of an intent to evade authorities for purposes of committing new sexual offenses and is therefore synonymous with elevated risk, and
(d) that the figure is attributable to the actions or inactions of individual registrants
rather than to data management or other administrative system limitations. This article
critically examines and evaluates these assumptions and then provides new data estimating the number of noncompliant sex offenders in the United States. We conclude
with implications for policy and practice.

Where Did the Number Come From?
According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC),
there are currently approximately 730,000 registered sex offenders (RSOs) in the
United States (NCMEC, 2010). Scholarly research on the national sex offender population has been hindered by the fact that state sex offender registries are independently
operated, creating significant challenges in generating a national database for empirical inquiry. Furthermore, because the sex offender registry population fluctuates daily
as new offenders are added and status changes occur for those already listed, any registry research represents only one snapshot in time. Though some state government reports
have provided information about the status of offenders on their registries, only one
known scholarly article has been published to date investigating the characteristics of
the nationwide sex offender population and estimating of the number of missing sex
offenders (Ackerman, Harris, Levenson, & Zgoba, 2011).
Although the 100,000 figure has been attributed to the NCMEC or the US Marshals
Service (USMS), news archives suggest that the original source was a grassroots advocacy organization called Parents for Megan’s Law (PFML). Prompted by an Associated
Press investigation revealing that California had lost track of at least 33,000 sex
offenders, PFML initiated a survey of state registries in 2003 and reported that, “on

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

3

Levenson and Harris	

average,” states were unable to account for 24% of sex offenders required to register.
Their website claims that they “found that nearly 25% of the nations’ [sic] registered
sex offenders were not complying with state registration requirements . . . over
100,000 sex offenders were ‘missing’ from registries across the country” (Parents for
Megan’s Law, 2010). Like dormitory gossip or the childhood game Whisper Down the
Lane, this statement galvanized the urban legend that over years of telling took on a
life of its own.
PFML has not made their methodology or detailed results of their survey publicly
available and they did not respond to multiple inquiries from the current authors. A
2003 story by Associated Press reporter Kim Curtis, however, revealed that although
registry managers in all states responded to PFML’s telephone survey, only 32 were
able to provide failure-to-register rates (Curtis, 2003a). The numbers were based on
the word of officials in each state; no raw data were provided to PFML for analyses.
Many registry officials said they had never audited their sex offender registries and
could provide only rough estimates of their accuracy. The survey results reported that
California, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Tennessee had the highest rates of noncompliance, all at around 50%. A Tennessee official disputed this, and Oklahoma’s Corrections
Department spokesman, Brian Johnson, said the figure was just his best guess. “I don’t
have any specific actual information in terms of the level of noncompliance,” he told
the Associated Press. “We’ve not done a study of that that I’m aware of.” Florida was
among the states with the best compliance, successfully tracking about 95% of their
RSOs (Curtis, 2003a).
An earlier Associated Press analysis of the California registry, based on actual registry data, suggested that there were indeed systemic problems with that state’s registry and that the records of as many as 33,296 sex offenders (44% of the 76,350 who
were registered at the time) were out of date (Curtis, 2003b). Poor sex offender tracking made news in other states as well. For example, a Boston Herald investigation
in November 2003 found that approximately 49% of the 18,120 sex offenders in
Massachusetts were not registered at all with either the state or with local police
departments. More than 1,000 sex offenders were living in Boston but the addresses of
nearly half were unknown to police. The Herald found that the job of tracking sex
offenders released from prison and verifying the accuracy of their addresses had fallen
through the cracks (Mullvihill, Wisniewski, Meyers, & Wells, 2003).
Looking back on the news coverage, it is easy to see how a fairly cohesive narrative
emerged. Extrapolating from their state survey, PFML estimated that about 25% of the
nation’s sex offenders (about 100,000 at the time) did not have a verified current
address. Ever since that alarming statistic was quoted in the media, it has permeated
the public discourse of what is “known” about sex offenders. The fallacy, however,
might be that the problem of “missing” sex offenders was more a reflection of failures
in the operation and administration of the registries than of noncompliance by individual RSOs. In other words, challenges related to record keeping, personnel demands,
and data management during the formative years of sex offender registration laws
were likely conflated with the issue of offender noncompliance.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

4		

Criminal Justice Policy Review XX(X)

Definitional Ambiguity
The actual numbers aside, reviewing the history of the issue sheds light on important
definitional ambiguities inherent in discussions of “missing” sex offenders. There is a
clear lack of uniformity in how certain terms and designations are applied across
jurisdictions and how these concepts are interpreted and communicated. States use
different language in their registries to describe sex offenders whose addresses might
not be verified; examples include terminology that may denote a lack of permanent
address (e.g., “homeless” or “transient”), technical failure to comply with registration
requirements (“in violation” or “noncompliant”), and official designations of fugitive
status ( “absconded,” “address unknown,” or ”whereabouts unknown”). Most states
appear to track and report any form of registry noncompliance—not specifically fugitive or absconder status.
A 2011 investigation by Politifact (a fact-checking news outlet) attempted to ascertain the number of missing sex offenders in several New England states (Lord, 2011).
They found that 4% of sex offenders in Rhode Island were “unaccounted for,” 7% in
Connecticut were “not in compliance,” 1.5% of New York sex offenders were identified as “location unknown,” and nearly 3% of Massachusetts offenders were designated as “violators.” According to this report, official figures from California in March
2011 indicated that about 24% of sex offenders from that state were “in violation” of
the registration law (Lord, 2011). In 2009, the California Sex Offender Management
Board noted in a report that 18% of their registrants were defined as “in violation” of
some sort (California Sex Offender Management Board, 2010).
We can see that states show a vast range of noncompliance rates. Five states comprise nearly half the registered sex offenders in the United States (California, Florida,
Texas, Michigan, and New York). Larger states might have more challenges tracking
their offenders, and California has consistently been an outlier with higher reports of
noncompliance than other states. PFML’s strategy of extrapolating a national estimate
from a state such as California is a flawed methodology; national averages cannot be
inferred from single states. We further suggest that a more refined definition of “missing”
sex offenders might produce more accurate rates of registrants whose whereabouts are
truly unknown.
References to the 100,000 missing sex offenders have dominated policy discussions since 2003 and in fact were instrumental in persuading Congress to include certain parameters in the passage of the Adam Walsh Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (2006). Consider the compelling testimony of the director of the
NCMEC during hearings in 2005
In 31 States, the penalty for failure to register is just a misdemeanor. In three
States, offenders have more than 10 days to notify authorities when they change
their address. We suspect that those who represent the greatest threat to children
are also the least likely to be compliant. There are at least 100,000 non-compliant
offenders; people like the killer of Jessica Lunsford, who was not where he was

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

5

Levenson and Harris	
supposed to be and whose presence was unknown to police or Jessica’s
family . . . . (109th Congress, 2005, p. 15)

In response to this and other testimony, the Adam Walsh Act required RSOs to
notify authorities of an address change within three business days and made failing to
do so a felony offense punishable by a prison term of 1 to 10 years (Adam Walsh Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act, 2006).
As well, definitional ambiguity articulating the number of “missing” sex offenders
may lead to certain assumptions that drive funding allocations. In a 2009-2010 appropriations bill, Congress placed the number of missing sex offenders at 135,000 as part
of the rationale for a substantial increase in the U.S. Marshal Service budget (111th
Congress, 2009). Although the bill does not cite a path to this figure, the most likely
explanation is that it represented an inflation of the original 100,000 figure, accounting
for growth in the number of RSOs nationwide. Alluding to the vast magnitude of the
problem of fugitive sex offenders, the bill commended the Marshals Service and
appropriated an additional US$10,000,000 above their US$50,985,000 request to
expand Adam Walsh Act enforcement.

Registration Noncompliance and Risk for Sexual Recidivism
Implicit in the interchangeable use of the terms described earlier (e.g., “fugitive,”
“absconder,” “missing”) is the assumption that all sex offenders who are noncompliant with registration are deliberately eluding authorities and that they represent the
highest risk of sexual offending. This belief is reflected throughout official testimony,
including the following statement from a 2011 hearing to reauthorize the Adam Walsh
Act:
. . . the mobility of offenders and inconsistencies among state registration laws
have resulted in as many as 100,000 missing sex offenders. Law enforcement
does not know where these missing sex offenders are, yet they are living in our
communities . . . The offenders who take advantage of these loopholes are
attempting to evade their registration duties—which could present a threat to
the safety of our communities. (Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act, 2011,
pp. 5-6).
In another example, a press release announcing the introduction of a bill called the
Finding Fugitive Sex Offender Act of 2011 stated, “Sex offenders often fail to register
precisely so they can evade detection and in many cases, find new victims . . . Marshals
must . . . be able to find missing predators more easily and greatly curb the threat of
future offenses” (Blumenthal, 2011). The former director of the U.S. Sex Offender
Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) Office
warned in a USA Today story, “The people you need to be worried about most are the
ones who aren’t registering at all” (Koch, 2007, p. 1).

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

6		

Criminal Justice Policy Review XX(X)

These assertions are problematic on at least two levels. First, while research on sex
offender registration compliance is in its infancy, studies that have been conducted do
not demonstrate a direct linkage between failure to comply with registration requirements and sexual recidivism risk. Duwe and Donnay (2010), noting that failure to
register (FTR) has become the most common recidivism offense for sex offenders
released from prisons in Minnesota, examined outcomes of 1,561 released high-risk
sex offenders. Of these, about 11% had been convicted of failing to register, but FTR was
not predictive of either sexual or general recidivism. The authors concluded that registration noncompliance did not appear to increase the risk of sexual reoffending
(Duwe & Donnay, 2010). A study conducted in South Carolina involving 2,970 RSOs
(Levenson, Letourneau, Armstrong, & Zgoba, 2010) found no statistically significant
differences between sexual recidivism rates of those who failed to register (11%) and
compliant registrants (9%). FTR did not predict sexual recidivism, and the authors
suggested that FTR and sexual offending tap separate constructs, with FTR related to
rule-breaking behavior patterns while sexual offending is driven by sexual deviance.
A similar study in New Jersey revealed that failure to register was not a significant
predictor of sexual recidivism. FTR offenders were more likely to have adult female
victims, debunking the myth that pedophiles abscond in order to prey on children
(Zgoba & Levenson, in press).
Beyond these findings, research on general criminal offenders has found that sex
offenders are among those least likely to abscond (Williams, McShane, & Dolny, 2000),
that prior offense severity does not predict absconding, and that that absconders are
not necessarily a high-risk criminal group (Mayzer, Gray, & Maxwell, 2004; Schwaner,
McGaughey, & Tewksbury, 1998; Williams et al., 2000). Furthermore, it appears that
some parole violators are motivated to flee due to a perceived inability to comply with
an overwhelming, complex, and rigid set of rules (Schwaner et al., 1998) rather than to
commit new crimes.
The second major fallacy involved in the presumption that noncompliance is associated with risk is the lack of recognition that failure to register may be linked to a
wide range of circumstances ranging from RSO oversight or carelessness to deliberate
evasion of authorities. It is improbable that all sex offenders with invalid addresses are
willful violators; rather, most noncompliant sex offenders do not appear to have
absconded (Duwe & Donnay, 2010; Levenson et al., 2010). Reports from law enforcement agencies that have embarked on initiatives targeting noncompliant registrants
suggest that the substantial majority of those who fail to adhere to registration requirements are easily located through routine local law enforcement actions. Some may
appear to be missing due to inadequate or incomplete address information, data entry
errors, lag times in administrative updating, unauthorized travel, or homelessness
(Harris & Pattavina, 2009). Confused by complex registration laws, some sex offenders might carelessly neglect to update their registration as required but continue to
report to parole agents and remain in their known locations despite their lapse in
compliance.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

7

Levenson and Harris	

Among those who do indeed willfully fail to register, it cannot be assumed that all
of these individuals do so to evade authorities for purposes of committing new sexual
offenses. It is well documented that many RSOs experience unemployment, housing
disruption, harassment, and social alienation as a result of sex offender registration and
notification (SORN) laws (Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson, D’Amora, & Hern, 2007;
Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Zevitz
& Farkas, 2000). It would therefore be expected that some sex offenders fail to comply
in an effort to avoid the collateral consequences of SORN.

Offender Noncompliance or Administrative Failure?
One final noteworthy point regarding the “100,000 missing” is that offender noncompliance may be conflated with inherent problems involving the administration of the
registries. It is likely that the number of sex offenders whose whereabouts were
unknown was higher in the early years of the new millennium than it is currently and
that much of the “missing sex offender” problem was due to the comparatively
primitive state of SORN systems at that point in time. States were mandated to come
into compliance by 1999 with the Jacob Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law. The PROTECT
Act, an additional Wetterling amendment, required states to develop and maintain
online registries by 2003. Law enforcement officers and probation agents expressed
concerns early on about increased personnel demands as states struggled to implement
new registration and notification procedures (Matson & Lieb, 1996; Zevitz & Farkas,
2000). It is not surprising that tracking and monitoring of sex offenders in the early
days of the law was far from perfect. Since that time, enhancements in technology and
automated tracking procedures have led to improvements in monitoring and verifying
the locations of RSOs.
Although states have improved their procedures over the past decade, some states
historically have been more or less successful than others. There is little evidence to
suggest that either registry noncompliance or “missing” status is evenly distributed
across jurisdictions. For reasons that are unclear, for instance, California has consistently demonstrated a higher rate of noncompliance than other states and Florida has
historically been one of the most successful states in tracking offenders. Some states
may have more sophisticated technology or more substantial personnel resources to
verify addresses.

How Many Sex Offenders in America are Truly Missing?
To answer this question, we rely on two recent studies investigating the characteristics
of U.S. sexual offenders. The methodologies included efforts to ascertain how many
were documented by states as truly missing or absconded. The studies are summarized
very briefly here and interested readers can refer to the full reports for a more detailed
understanding of the methods and results.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

8		

Criminal Justice Policy Review XX(X)

Figure 1. Official designations of “missing” sex offenders, using data downloaded from public
Internet registries

The first study analyzed data on 445,127 RSOs obtained in 2010 from the Internet
registries of 49 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and Guam (Ackerman et al.,
2011). Using data downloaded directly from public registries (about two thirds of the
total RSO population), the authors were able to identify 17,688 RSOs who were designated by states to be transient, homeless, absconded, noncompliant, or whose address
or whereabouts were otherwise unknown. Nationwide, a total of 5,349 offenders were
officially listed as absconded, 1,264 were listed as missing or unable to be located, and
4,152 were listed as having failed to comply with registration requirements. Using
these categories, approximately 10,000 sex offenders (2.4%) might be considered
“truly missing.” Utilizing the more inclusive figure of 17,688 offenders (including
those designated homeless or transient), approximately 4% of the sample might not
have a valid address. No evidence was found to support the frequently repeated notion
that 100,000 of the nation’s sex offenders are missing or unaccounted for.
A second study (Harris, Levenson, & Ackerman, under review) analyzed data
obtained in 2010 via email and telephone surveys of state registry managers. Of 42
responding jurisdictions, 29 provided counts of missing and absconded RSOs, reporting a total of 28,678 cases with such designations. Notably, more than half of these
cases were derived from one state (California) and nearly three quarters from just four
states. Rates varied significantly across jurisdictions, ranging from less than 1% to just
above 13%, with a median rate of 2.7%. Though states were asked to report in this
category only those RSOs officially designated as missing or absconded, follow-up
analyses indicated that many states (including those with the highest rates such as
California and Wisconsin) included any form of registry noncompliance in their missing/

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

9

Levenson and Harris	

absconded status. States using more refined definitions (e.g., unsuccessful attempts to
locate the offender) produced more moderate estimates.
The study identified significant variation in how state systems defined and captured these data. Citing both definitional variation and the skewed distribution of
those officially designated as missing or absconded, the study’s authors cautioned
against extrapolating figures based on a limited sample to derive a national estimate.
They concluded, however, that there is little evidence to support the assertion that
more than 100,000 RSOs are missing or absconded, even using the most liberal definitional criteria.

Summary and Policy Implications
Our review concludes that despite its influence and significant staying power, the
continued assertion that 100,000 of the nation’s sex offenders are unaccounted for has
not been substantiated. Recent research suggests that the figure is highly inflated;
using data obtained directly from online registries and state registry managers, it is
estimated that approximately 2.5% of the nation’s RSOs might be truly missing but
that the proportion increases to about 4% when including homeless and transient
offenders with unverified addresses. Moreover, continued reference to 100,000 missing sex offenders carries with it numerous problematic assumptions, including the
expectation of increased risk and the presumption of intentional evasion. Finally, it
appears that rates of registration failure vary widely across the states, suggesting that
the problem may be, in large part, a reflection of idiosyncratic data challenges and
inadequate law enforcement resources in particular jurisdictions rather than a more
generalized crisis of sex offender absconding.
In addition, the definitional ambiguity across states creates significant challenges
for both policy makers and researchers. The Adam Walsh Act intended to facilitate
uniformity in classification systems, Internet notification procedures, data elements,
and parameters of registration. It does little, however, to address the considerable definitional differences across state registration systems. Registries are intended primarily
for law enforcement tracking and public awareness purposes, but they also provide
important information for those engaged in research and policy development. With
that in mind, federal policy makers seeking greater standardization might consider the
development of common terminology and definitions that could be implemented as
states pursue Adam Walsh Act compliance. For instance, if states were required to differentiate “noncompliant” or “unverified” offenders from those who have “absconded,”
the number of truly “missing” sex offenders at any given time might be more readily
estimated. There should be a specific designation for offenders who remain unaccounted for after multiple failed attempts to locate them or when it has been confirmed
that the offender is no longer living at the registered address and is no longer checking
in with probation, parole, treatment providers, or law enforcement.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

10		

Criminal Justice Policy Review XX(X)

Regardless of how artfully the statistic is framed, the implicit subtext—that there
are more than 100,000 dangerous sex offenders lurking in the shadows and deliberately evading detection so that they can prey on children—exerts a profound impact on
policy development and on federal funding allocations. These decisions are influenced
in part by public perception. As Brunvand cautioned, “The mass media themselves
participate in the dissemination and apparent validation of urban legends . . . adding to
their plausibility” (Brunvand, 1981, p. xii). If the number of noncompliant, missing, or
fugitive sex offenders is to continue to wield an impact on allocation of taxpayer dollars and the broader sex offender policy discourse, we need better and far more transparent data.
Ultimately, devising informed and effective responses to registration lapses requires
a more refined understanding of RSO noncompliance and its circumstances. With
more accurate data, we can more effectively identify and respond to potentially dangerous predators who truly abscond to avoid detection. Reliance on a single and outdated statistic—one that proves unsubstantiated when examining current data—does
little to advance understanding of the needs and limitations of the nation’s sex offender
registries and obscures important definitional and practical distinctions that are vital to
the efficient distribution of resources across levels of government.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
109th Congress. (2005). Protecting our nation’s children from sexual predators and violent
criminals: What needs to be done? Retrieved from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:21658.pdf#page=018
111th Congress. (2009). Senate Report 111-229. Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/
cpquery/?&sid=cp111650mg&r_n=sr229.111&dbname=cp111&&sel=TOC_248505&
Ackerman, A. R., Harris, A. J., Levenson, J. S., & Zgoba, K. (2011). Who are the people in
your neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries.
International Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 34, 149-159. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.04.001
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub.L. 109-248, § 111 Stat. 2466 (2006).
Blumenthal, R. (2011). Sessions and Blumenthal introduce Finding Fugitive Sex Offender Act of
2011. Retrieved from http://blumenthal.senate.gov/press/release/?id=2f95c690-cfc4-40b0b798-754c30c67267
Brunvand, J. H. (1981). The vanishing hitchhiker: Urban American legends and their meaning.
New York, NY: WW Norton.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

11

Levenson and Harris	

California Sex Offender Management Board. (2010, January). Recommendations Report.
Retrieved from http://www.casomb.org/docs/CASOMB%20Report%20Jan%202010_
Final%20Report.pdf
Curtis, K. (2003a). Sex offenders failing to register: Survey says states can’t account for many
missing from databases. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.
mpl/2003_3624768/sex-offenders-failing-to-register-survey-says-stat.html
Curtis, K. (2003b, January 8). California “loses” 33,000 sex offenders. Retrieved from http://
www.rentalresearch.com/CaliforniaLoosesSexOffenders.pdf
Duwe, G., & Donnay, W. (2010). The effects of failure to register on sex offender recidivism.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 520-536.
Harris, A. J., Levenson, J. S., & Ackerman, A. A. (XXXX). Registered sex offenders in the
United States: Behind the numbers. Manuscript under review.
Harris, A. J., & Pattavina, A. (2009, November 6). Missing sex offenders and the utility of
sex offender registration systems. Paper presented at the America Society of Criminology,
Philadelphia, PA.
Koch, W. (2007, November 18). Many sex offenders are often homeless. Retrieved from http://
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-18-homeless-offenders_N.htm.
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49-66.
Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007). Megan’s Law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587-602.
Levenson, J. S., Letourneau, E., Armstrong, K., & Zgoba, K. (2010). Failure to register as a sex
offender: Is it associated with recidivism? Justice Quarterly, 27, 305-331.
Lord, P. (2011). Palumbo says there are 500,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. and 100,000
are unaccounted for. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/
mar/03/peter-palumbo/palumbo-says-there-are-500000-registered-sex-offen/
Matson, S., & Lieb, R. (1996). Sex offender community notification: A review of laws in 32
states. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Mayzer, R., Gray, M. K., & Maxwell, S. R. (2004). Probation absconders: A unique risk group?
Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 137-150.
Mercado, C. C., Alvarez, S., & Levenson, J. S. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender
legislation on community re-entry. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 20,
188-205.
Mullvihill, M., Wisniewski, K., Meyers, J., & Wells, J. (2003, November 5). Monster next door:
State losing track of sex offenders. Boston Herald.
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (2010). Registered sex offenders in the
United States. Retrieved from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/sex-offendermap.pdf
Parents for Megan’s Law. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/public/
meganFederal.html
Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act. (2011). Testimony of Ernie Allen. Retrieved from
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Allen02152011.pdf

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011

12		

Criminal Justice Policy Review XX(X)

Schwaner, S. L., McGaughey, D., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Situational constraints and absconding behavior: Toward a typology of parole fugitives. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,
27(1/2), 37-55.
Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67-82.
Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309-334.
Williams, F. P., McShane, M. D., & Dolny, M. H. (2000). Predicting parole absconders. Prison
Journal, 80(1), 24-38.
Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Examining the
importance of neighborhood meetings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 393-408.
Zgoba, K., & Levenson, J. S. (in press). Failure to Register as a Predictor of Sex Offense
Recidivism: The Big Bad Wolf or a Red Herring? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment.

Bios
Jill S. Levenson is Associate Professor of Psychology and Human Services at Lynn University
in Boca Raton, FL. Her research analyzes the impact and effectiveness of social policies
designed to reduce sexual violence. She also studies the treatment of sex offenders and their
families.
Andrew J. Harris is Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology
at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. His current research focuses on the development
and implementation of state and federal sex offender policy, and on societal responses to the
issue of teen sexting.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at ATSA on July 15, 2011